1.

inleiding:

directe instructie = volledige informatie bieden (meer voorkauwen) minimale instructie = incomplete informatie bieden (meer zelf doen)

discovery learning = problem-based learning (PBL) = inquiry learning (IL) = experiential learning = constructivist learning = principes van de discipline leren door middel van ervaring met de procedures van de discipline zelf.

2 assumptions:

• zelf oplossing vinden op authentieke problemen leidt tot beter leren
• kennis wordt best geleerd door ervaring (aka de procedures van de discipline)

geimpliceerd: directe instructie dwarsboomt natuurlijk leren (aka goede performance tijdens oefenen, slechtere performance op een later moment)

instructie moet matchen met cognitieve archictectuur van mensen, anders ineffectief

en

het doel van instructie is verandering in LTM (= centrale component van menselijke cognitie)

werkgeheugen heeft limitaties in capaciteit en duratie voor nieuwe informatie, maar heeft deze limitatie niet voor bestaande informatie in LTM. hier moet instructie rekening mee houden.

er is een de verschuiving van een discipline leren als kennisbasis naar een discipline leren door ervaring op te doen met procedures van de discipline zelf.

inhoud kennis = inhoudelijke kennis van een discipline didactische kennis = kennis van lesgeven over een discipline curriculaire kennis = middelen om les te geven over een discipline die beschikbaar zijn voor een docent

argumenten:

1. minimale instructie leid tot te hoge cognitive load

“[…] cognitive load theory suggests that the free exploration of a highly complex environment may generate a heavy working memory load that is detrimental to learning […]”

“[…] exploration practice (a discovery technique) caused a much larger cognitive load and led to poorer learning than worked-examples practice […]”

1. alleen zoeken naar informatie in LTM is onvoldoende voor leren.

“The goal of instruction is rarely simply to search for or discover information. The goal is to give learners specific guidance about how to cognitively manipulate information in ways that are consistent with a learning goal, and store the result in long-term memory […]”

“Solving a problem requires problem-solving search […]. Problem-solving search is an inefficient way of altering long-term memory because its function is to find a problem solution, not alter long-term memory. Indeed, problem-solving search can function perfectly with no learning whatsoever.”

1. geen bewijs dat minder informatie tot betere constructie/leren leidt

“[…] no evience that presenting them with partial information enhances their ability to construct a representation more than giving them full information. Actually, quite the reverse seems most often to be true”

“Controlled experiments almost uniformly indicate that when dealing with novel information, learners should be explicitly shown what to do and how to do it.”

1. de manier van werken in een discipline (epistimologie) is niet hetzelfde als de manier van leren in een discipline (didactiek)

“[…] the way an expert works in his or her domain (epistemology) is not equivalent to the way one learns in that area (pedagogy).”

“[…] clear distinction between learning a discipline and practicing a discipline […]”

“[…] educators seem to confuse the teaching of a discipline as inquiry (…) with the teaching of the discipline by inquiry (…) […]”

“The major fallacy of this rationale is that it makes no distinction between the behaviors and methods of a researcher who is an expert practicing a profession and those students who are new to the discipline and who are, thus, essentially novices.”

“[…] mistake to assume that instruction should exclusively focus on application.”

1. ervaren leerders profiteren niet van directe instructie, maar presteren ook niet slechter

“[…] knowledgeable learners did not experience a negative effect and benefited equally from both types of treatments.”

“Even for students with considerable prior knowledge, strong guidance while learning is most often found to be equally effective as unguided approaches.”

1. leren door minimale instructie (als het lukt) leidt niet tot betere resultaten

“Those relatively few students who learned via discovery showed no signs of superior quality of learning.”

1. directe instructie is ook beter voor transfer (omdat er meer geleerd wordt)

“[…] some form of stronger guidance is necessary for both effective learning and transfer.”

1. leerstijlen bestaan niet

“Attempts to validate experiential learning and learning styles (Kolb, 1971, 1984, 1999) appear not to have been completely successful”

“[…] correlations classified as low (< .5) and effect sizes that were weak (.2) to medium (.5) […] magnitude of these statistics is not sufficient to meet standards of predictive validity […]. Kolb Learning Style Inventory (KLSI-1976; Kolb, 1976) has low test–retest reliability.”

“[…] little or no correlation between factors that should correlate with the classification of learning styles, and that it does not enjoy a general acceptance of its usefulness, particularly for research purposes.”

1. PBL is niet geschikt voor medische/clinische kennis.

“[…] the hypothetico-deductive method may not be the most efficient way of solving clinical problems.”

“[…] once basic science knowledge is contextualized, it is difficult to separate it from the particular clinical problems into which it has been integrated.”

“[…] participants trained in PBL retained the backward-directed reasoning pattern, but did not seem to acquire forward-directed reasoning, which is a hallmark of expertise”

“Experts use schema-based pattern recognition to deter- mine the cause of a patient’s illness. According to Elstein (1994) knowledge organization and schema acquisition are more important for the development of expertise than the use of particular methods of problem solving.”

^het grappige is dat dit dus juist komt omdat PBL dus niet gebruik maakt van de methodes/procedures van de discipline zelf…

2.

Schmidt et al. (2007)

reactie: minimale instructie is inderdaad minder effectief, maar PBL is niet per definitie minimale instructie, het is een methode waarbij de hoeveelheid instructie flexibel is. PBL is wél compatibel met cognitieve architectuur

Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007)

reactie: jullie conflaten IL en PBL met discovery learning. het is geen minimale instructie van er is veel scaffolding, daardoor is CL juist minder.

Kuhn (2007)

reactie: jullie nemen lesgeven en instructie (de hoe) uit context en houden geen rekening met het onderwerp van de les (de wat). we zouden juist de doelen van onderwijs moeten overwegen, niet de methodes.

3a.

1. PBL is niet minimale instructie, PBL is juist flexibel in de hoeveelheid instructie

“We have argued that Kirschner et al.’s (2006) classification of PBL as unguided or minimally guided instruction is incorrect.”

“[…] elements that comprise PBL allow for flexible adaptation of guidance and management of cognitive load, thereby showing that PBL is compatible with the manner in which our cognitive structures are organized.”

1. problem-solving search kan geminimaliseerd worden

“[…] search component can be reduced by offering a restricted set of resources or by tutor suggestions.”

1. het doel van PBL is onafhankelijkheid voor gevorderden, niet per se dezelfde onafhankelijkheid voor beginners

“One of the basic tenets of PBL can be summarized as scaffolding for student independence. Kirschner et al. (2006), however, seem to confuse the ultimate goal of student independence with novice learners being unguided or minimally guided in PBL.”

1. niet iedereen voert PBL hetzelfde/even effectief uit, maar dit geldt voor elke instructiemethode

“[…] exact implementation of these elements may differ […] [as] is the case with every instructional approach (e.g., there is not a single form of “conventional” lecture-based curricula).”

1. er zijn twee soorten complex: 1) CLT-complex: veel interacterende elementen in werkgeheugen, en 2) PBL-complex: mogelijke oplossingsrichtingen en oplossingen.

bewijs voor directe instructie betreft problemen die CLT-wel-complex en PBL-niet-complex is, en PBL betreft problemen die CLT-niet-complex en PBL-wel-complex zijn. de vergelijking is dus niet helemaal eerlijk.

“[…] the evidence they report in favor of guided instruction comes mostly from highly structured domains, using problems that can indeed be called complex in terms of CLT (i.e., a high number of interactive elements in a task), but are quite simple when complexity is defined in terms of the possibility of multiple solution paths or even multiple solutions (see Campbell, 1988). Since the problems used in PBL are usually complex in terms of the second definition, this comparison is not entirely fair.”

1. bewijs voor directe instructie gaat uit van individueel leren, terwijl de focus van PBL op collaboratief leren ligt.

“[…] the evidence in favor of guided instruction comes from studies on individual learning settings instead of group-based learning settings such as PBL […]”

“One should therefore be careful not to apply instructional design guidelines for individual learning directly to group-based learning settings.”

1. vergelijkingen tussen instructiemethodes door curricula te vergelijken is questionable

“comparisons between instructional interventions at the curriculum level are doomed to fail because randomization of students over the treatment conditions is almost always impossible”

1. het is mogelijk dat je te maken hebt met ceiling-effects: door voorselectie ligt het gemiddelde niveau heel hoog en zijn de verschillen minimaal (en mogelijk dus helemaal niet toe te wijzen aan een instructiemethode)

“[…] since medical students are highly selected in terms of knowledge and skill required to enter medical school, performance on achievement tests are bound to show ceiling effects, leaving little room for improvement.”

1. het soort transfer dat directe instructie en PBL beogen is verschillend, dus effectiviteit is ook afhankelijk van de gebruikte uitkomstmaat

“Whereas many conventional curricula are focused on the acquisition and direct application of knowledge, PBL is more focused on the flexible application of knowledge. In terms of type of knowledge and type of transfer ability assessed, PBL focuses more on knowledge about how to interpret and approach problems. As a consequence, the kind of transfer that is aimed at includes the ability to prepare for future learning, for example, the ability to define what information one needs to be able to solve a problem. In contrast, many forms of guided instruction tend to focus more on directly applicable knowledge and focus on “sequestered problem solving” transfer tasks that require learners to solve problems based on the acquired knowledge, without the option of seeking out additional information (Schwartz et al., 2005). Consequently, the outcome of comparison studies depends on the type of assessment used.”

3b.

ik kom er net achter dat ik de perongeluk geswitched ben naar het nederlands ipv engels tijdens het samenvatten. sorry! de rest is engels:

Cognitive load & distributed learning/cognition: PBL reduces cognitive load in two ways: it is clearly structured in seven steps, and if stuck a tutor can provide additional information. Both reduce extraneous load. And, complex problems are handed to groups, exactly because of limited working memory capacity. The group can bundle their working memory capacity (each member holding a little bit of the problem) and prior knowledge. This is called distributed cognition.

So yes, there is higher cognitive load then in direct instruction, but it is also distributed among a group, and if the load is still too high, a tutor can step in and help.

Scaffolding & expertise-reversal effect: PBL uses scaffolding with fading. There is a tutor with instructions if the group gets stuck, the resources are provided and get less specific/specified with more expertise, and problems go from simple to complex with more expertise. According to the expertise reversal-effect, guidance should shrink as expertise increases. PBL does that with scaffolding/fading, direct instruction doesn’t.

Does PBL then only work with scaffolding? -> yes, but so does direct instruction. a bad lecture is a bad lecture.

Activating prior knowledge & meaningful learning: group discussion in PBL leads to better recall because it activates prior knowledge. It is also a form of elaboration and can be a desirable difficulty (slowing you down to think more clearly). All of these are known to lead to better learning. The effect holds up if activated knowledge is wrong and is biggest for novice learners especially.

(^And another thing: PBL is a trigger to study. The actual studying still happens individually from the provided resources. The problem is not solely the method by which you learn. Not sure how this fits in with either Schmidt’s or Kirschner’s arguments tbh.)

Transfer: PBL isn’t necessarily better for learning new knowledge or skills, but does help with transfer to new situations.

(^But I am still confused about this, because the paper by Kirschner said it didn’t matter for transfer. Maybe it has something to do with the different types of transfer? In general I did not quite understand the whole section in Schmidt’s paper on transfer.)

Autonomy & situational interest: PBL can be very motivating for students because they have a high level of autonomy, which according to self-determination theory can lead to increaed intrinsic motivation, and problems posed by PBL can create situational interest. Both are known to increase learning.